~ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34

What is to be done?

If we accept the thrust of the argument in Friday’s post (which seems to have garnered a great many re-tweets, for which thanks to those who did so), the question arises, what, if anything, is to be done?

It is no accident that many of those most alarmed at recent events in Rome are converts. Many of us (for I am one myself) came to the Rock that is Rome as the one secure place in the shifting sands. Some wonder whether Orthodoxy is an option? As one who took that option but went on to cross the Tiber, I am a bad person to ask. I found much to admire and love in the Orthodox tradition, but it is not mine, and I found the ethnic aspects distracting. Moreover, whilst in the countries of its strength, Orthodoxy tends not to encounter the problems with liberalism which we have in the West, those of us in the West know it is encountering them here; you can run, as they say, but you cannot hide.

To those, and there are such, who say ‘leave the Church of Rome’, I would say what Peter said: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life?” The Church stands eternal on the Rock of Peter’s faith, and neither preachy Popes, sophistical Jesuits and the forces of ACTA, are going to shift it. This is hardly the first time in its history that the Church has faced existential threats, and there is no point being a Christian soldier and fleeing at the note of the last trump! There are, as the debates over the Synod has shown, myriads of faithful Catholics, not least among our Cardinalate and the episcopacy; and it may well be that at times it is easy to exaggerate the number of unorthodox ones.

What would not be helpful would be to engage with those on the ‘change’ side of the debate in the way some of them have engaged with conservatives. We know their mantra – ‘hard hearts’, want of ‘mercy’, too much concentration on ‘the law’, ‘Pharisaism’ – and we know how how we react to those words; there is no reason to suppose that the other side will be any more converted from their position than we are if we respond in kind. We are to love the sinner, even as we hate the sin, and we are to be mindful that we are sinners too. We no more own the Church than do those whom we oppose – we are all its children, and we all err and stray, and we shold beware the spiritual pride which can come from seeing ourselves as defenders of orthodoxy – it was such who rejected the Chalcedonian definition of the two natures, and it was such who rejected language about hypostases because such language was unknown from the Bible. Whilst, as I argued on Friday, and others have argued, the laity have a place in discussing such matters, so too do trained theologians, and as we get into some of the more intricate aspects of Christology and other dogma, it is as well to have the humility to acknowledge that.

It seems a good rule to me that when in doubt, ask what the Church has always done and stick with it. The temptations to personal infallibility are many, and it is surprising that so many who say they believe in the Fall, succumb to them when it comes to the Faith.

Let me conclude with a confession of my own. Unlike so many who have crossed the Tiber, I am unconvinced by the arguments against women priests, they seem, and have always seemed, embedded in a gendered sense of identity which is, itself, time-bound. But, be that as it may, who am I to put my thoughts against the universal opinion of the Church until yesterday? The same is the case with regard to the process of annulments, where I welcome anything which makes it quicker to discern the answer to the question of whether a marriage was ever valid. Here, it seems, the Church is happy to move in that direction; on the question of the ordination of women, the answer is no. As a Catholic, it is my duty to accept both sets of decision, and not to insist that in some way I am right. That is true of us all.

About chalcedon451

Post navigation

51 thoughts on “What is to be done?”

“. . . beware the spiritual pride which can come from seeing ourselves as defenders of orthodoxy.”

Spiritual pride is always a problem to be dealt with . . . though classically it is usually seen and expressed by those who defy the teachings of the Church in preferencee of their own private revelations or theological thought. I would think that we should all see ourselves as defenders of orthodoxy and exercise the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice in such regard which are derived from the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity.

So I find it a rather weak stance not to hear the ‘call to arms’ when it sounds . . . no matter who it is who is confronting authentic Catholic teaching. We either fight, cooperate with the enemy or surrender. There is no other choice. To question one’s ‘inderstanding’ of what was universally taught for ages to look again at how we can weasel a ‘new way’ or a ‘less pharisaical’ way is certain madness. Twisting the scriptures and the teachings to accomodate these new ways is the confusion that Satan tempts us with as is the fostering of ‘fainthearted’ Christians that will not stand for anything. You either hear a clarion call or you don’t. You either respond to this call or you don’t.

Is it new to have our own words used against us (mercy, love etc.)? Did not Satan try to tempt our Lord by use of the Scriptures as well?

I also meant to make one more distinction here as well. Many today throw around the word ‘pharisaical’ or the words ‘spiritual pride’ when speaking to those who hold to orthodox teachings. Is this not a twisting of the scriptures?

Matthew 23:25-26

25 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.

For it seems to me we are to take from this that one is forget about the outside of the cup and let it be as filthy as the inside of the cup (all under the weasel words of love and mercy as they would make of them). But it is clear that Christ wants us to both clean the inside and the outside of the cup not to settle for a dirty cup, both inside and outside. So it is not pharisaical nor is it spiritual pride for those who endeavor to clean both . . . though it is threatening to those who wish to distort the teaching of letting the outward appearance and the inner appearance of mankind to be what it is: filthy. Work to clean both the outer and the inner man . . . and Jesus will bless you in your work.

True, but it is hard sometimes to see the love of Christ in some of those who emphasise the letter of the law of the Church. There are, on both sides of this, men of strong conscience who, in my view, allow themselves to see those who oppose them as not acting in the spirit of the Gospel; the moment you are in that place, whichever side you are on, you are not acting in the spirit of the Gospel – all have sinned 🙂

One may still oppose the enemy without smiting them with worldly swords. I would suggest the pen, the spoken word and above all, prayer. Then perhaps our Lord will release us from the grip of heretics or hypocrites before they push us beyond the limits of human endurance. Pray for the gift of long-suffering. But when prudence and temperance have run their course and it is time for fortitude and justice . . . give your all to these as well.

It may, but we need to be sure that we are firing only at the right people! Prof Faggioli has recently tweeted about Ross Douthat and development, so I have helpfully posted a link to Newman, whom Prof F appears not to have read!

If my arguments were as weak as his are in terms of Catholic tradition, and if I were unscrupulous, then I too would play the man and not the ball, But he’s unwise to mix it in the media with Douthat, who is far more at home in it. Yet again, there people are drawn out and shut up – they forget there is a great big Internet out there and they are not in their little ivory towers where no one knows what they are up to.

I still think there is a danger in our defining our position as ‘orthodox’ as opposed to those over there who are ‘unorthodox’. The Church has people whose job it is to say whether x is orthodox, unorthodox or just a view we’ve not thought of in that way, and to take on to ourselves a ‘call to arms’ is to go beyond our position in the Church.

Let me take as an example, Nostra Aetate. Some said at the time, and still say, that in saying what it does about the Jews, it goes against what the Church used to teach. There is no doubt that you could not have found a medieval, or probably a nineteenth century Catholic Bishop would would have said what that document says. Yet it is the teaching of the Church, and, on reading it, you can see that it discloses an attitude deeply-rooted in Scripture, but an understanding thereof enlightened by the terrible events of the mid-twentieth century. It would be very easy to take uo arms against it on the grounds it does not express what the Church used to say; but it would be wrong.

The Church has no one who has the authority to say that the Church has taught unorthodoxy in the past but now because they are more enlightened they will set things straight and deliver to us orthodoxy. And you do not say that there is a spiritual battle that you were armed by virtue of your Confirmation to defend? Yes that was our call to come to the aid of the teachings of the Church now and forever.

And to the present situation. . . is our teaching out of touch with Scriptural teachings? Will Kasper and Francis correct our understandings of this after 2000 years? Most Catholics today accept all of VII when read in a hermeneutic of continuity today . . . or are waiting for further clarification from Rome. I know of nobody who took the single issue of the Nostra Aetate to withdraw from the Church. I speak of spiritual arms my friend . . . and yes, we are called to arms everyday. If it turns out to be opposed to some of the bishops themselves then we abide by Christ first. We must be meek; though not in the modern effeminate meaning of the word . . . but long-suffering with forbearance against the wiles of the enemy. Do you not think that those who are slinging the words of pharisee and spiritual pride around are saying in effect that they are not these things? They are claiming for themselves that they are humble . . . even while they display disobedience to the teachings of the Church. It is the wiles of our enemy to have us sheathe our spiritual swords and ensure their corruption of the Church which they despise.

Yes, that is just what they are saying. If we are in Christ, we will not respond in kind; we have no need.

The Synod showed that even in a clearly rigged Synod there could not be found a majority to go against Catholic teaching, and I am happy to follow the lead of those like Pell and Napier and others. They do not advocate our getting aggressive, indeed quite the opposite, as such attitudes only give the other side cheap hits against us.

I have confidence that the Church will not budge from what is right, and when our leaders sound the trumpet, then is the time for the battle. They do not need the infantry firing off pot-shots and getting all edgy. When we can see the whites of their eyes, then is time to discharge our spiritual volleys.

As I said last week, if this Pope cannot get the result he wants from a bunch of aging Western bishops, he isn’t going to get it ever. And he isn’t, because what he wants is not what the Spirit wants; I believe and trust in Him – and those Bishops and Cardinals who listen and act with Him. As for this Pope, he came, he will go, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away – blessed be the word of the Lord.

Good for our spiritual strength I think. The present troubles are just that. It is time for orthodoxy to fight back, and this Synod, which none of us wanted, has provided the opportunity. Francis may not know what he’s doing, but God does. But for this, Francis might have proceeded steathily, now he can’t – we are all on to him and his little game. He can write what he likes, but we all know he was defeated and we will all point it out if his exhortation tries anything 🙂 Good thing the Internet! Shame it wasn’t around for VII.

Indeed – and here, again, the Pope has, inadvertently, perhaps, done us all a favour. I suspect these men do not really know much about the Internet and its power. There are far more orthodox voices out here than in some conferences of bishops, and if ‘we are church’, then we get a say, and if clericalism is a bad thing, the clerics don’t get to tell us to shutuppa your face!

Quite so. This prissy attempt to say that only tenured theologians can pronounce has back-fired in spectacular fashion, exposing some very dodgy theology, as well as a pride of caste which is as unjustified as it is unedifying 🙂 Thank you Pope Francis!

Indeed so . . . these types have taken the Faith of Christ to be a faith only for the elites. Seems to me I remember Christ speaking quite favorably and directly to children. Maybe they should think first about being a child of Christ.

Isn’t it odd? When they thought they spoke for the people whey were in favour of wide lay participation; now it is clear they don’t, they retreat into pride of caste. If I weren’t such a charitable fellow, I’d be accusing them of hypocrisy – but who am I to judge? 🙂

Thanks for this; always worth reading. But I am intrigued about your comment on women priests: St John Paul II stated that the Church ‘did not have the authority’ to change the male priesthood. I take this to mean that the male priesthood comes from Christ Himself, despite the honour He give to women, most especially His Mother, and that this teaching has been handed down from the time of the Apostles. It is not subject to ‘development’ (and JH Newman would certainly not have placed it in that category).

Since the Church says that, I am fine with it, and if that is the argument, it is, in fact, the only one which holds any water. It is the other arguments used which fail to convince me. But, as I say, my own views are quite irrelevant, Rome has spoken and that settle it for me 🙂

Well if women representing Christ at the altar is not a good argument I suppose you could take another pragmatic evaluation: such as, how this has affected those churches that did make priestesses possible. Seems none of them have fared very well from their change in structure. 🙂

No, I don’t think that is, as Christ represents all humanity, not just the male bit of it. I am not sure that it is the women priests who have turned the C of E the way it has gone; the ones I know are very good at pastoral care and generally a cut above their male counterparts, not least in their motivation. But as I say, the Church says it is not possible, and that’s all I need 🙂

It is, and an excellent article, including the comments. It reminds me that a Catholic friend of mine has said that every 500 years the laity reforms the Church and it looks that way in history, so maybe it’s time, again. It’s not hard to be of two minds on the whole thing, I am, and that’s from the outside.

Perhaps a very appropriate day for this, but do be careful; posting theses (however many). It can easily get out of hand, especially when using new media!

C, I am sorry, but it seems to me that you are all over the board, and in ways I may not be able to articulate. You praise the force of the internet (in the comments), but say when the Church speaks we should lay down and shut up. You even state (again in the comments) that no matter what Pope Francis may write about the synod, you will know he was defeated. You state that the Church has made it easier to get annulments, when in my understanding it was Pope Francis via ‘executive order’ without the backing of any synod or council. He did so by his September 18 disaster. Many orthodox or conservative Cardinals and bishops have stated that this current synod did not change doctrine on the divorced and remarried being able to receive the Eucharist, and you have agreed. But, answer me this. If you make it easier to receive annulments, this leads to more trying to get them, which leads to more being approved, which leads to more divorced and remarried being admitted to the Eucharist. What am I missing?

There are already huge backlogs and delays for annulments in many places, so I doubt there will be some great increase in the way you suggest. The reform does not, as you say, change doctrine, it simply allows the process to move more swiftly – and I can’t see that is wrong.

The Pope is not the Church. When he speaks with its voice, we heed him; when he goes off in one of his scolding sprees, we all think ‘there he goes again’.

I do! But, I have listened to you for so long back this pope, that what you are saying now is startling. You even post a link from Fr. H that is what Dave and I have been saying for about 2 years now. All the while auguring with us. Amazing. Maybe you just got up on the ‘correct’ side of the bed this morning. We shall see.

I back the Pope in general because he us the Pope. But he is infallible only where the Church has said he is. He is right to want to do something about the mess that the annulment system is in many places, and I welcome his emphasis on love and mercy. Beyond that, well, if he goes beyond the teaching of the Church, he will be checked, as he has been, and as I have said many times here would be the case.

You know that the pope wanted, by his stacking the synod, appointing Kasper and others to speak and control things, the doctrine for divorced and remarried to be changed. The pope wanted those people admitted to the Eucharist so bad that he greased the skids of the annulment process by his ‘executive order’ of September 18 so as to not need the synod. (and it seems you think he is infallible in doing so) He hedged his bet. Either way he won. He has now changed practice if not doctrine. Catholic annulments will now be far easier to obtain than civil divorce. Is this coming closer to what Christ said, or going further away from what Christ said? How would Sts. John the Baptist, Thomas More, or John Fisher answer the question? Was Pope Leo XIII wrong to beatified More and Fisher, and Pope Pius XI wrong to canonize them? How do we square this peg?

We have been down this road before, so I don’t except an answer. But, I seem to think YOU made need to visit it again. 🙂

Since, in this country, you can get a civil divorce by mutual consent just by asking, it is hard to say that the reforms to the process of annulments have become easier than that. Once you allow, as the Church has for centuries, an annulment process, the question becomes one of how it works, and there is no infallibility on that issue; processes can be changed and often are. Once it was only the rich and powerful who could get annulments, not it is many; a process designed in an age when few asked for annulments isn’t fit for this age. Of course, Jesus said nothing at all about annulments, so one might well argue that having it at all is a step away from what He said.

As we have not yet seen the process in action, it seems a little premature to draw conclusions about its working.

I think we are starting to get a hint of what the shape of the exhortation from Pope Francis will look like. On a phone conversation with Eugenio Scalfari we now have this: “The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the Sacraments, [it] confirms that this principle has been accepted by the Synod. This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.”

I guess we will have to look at the final product but this does seem to give us an indication at least at where Pope Francis is going with this.

The simplest answer I can come up with is this: put on the mind of Christ. He is the answer to every question, the destination of all journeys. He is the source and summit of all that we do as Christians. Without Him, nothing is good. He is all in all and that is all He desires to be: the all in all. The Alpha and the Omega. If we make a practice of doing all that we do beginning in a prayerful way with Him and asking that thru Him it be completed, then all that we do will be capable of being sanctified and will also obtain the graces we need for each little task of the day. We can actually become sanctified by this ourselves. It is simple. It can begin at any point in our days or at any point in our lives and if we are feeling overwhelmed or upset or a little “off,” we can start our day all over again, in Christ by simply pausing and praying a simple prayer: “What’s done is done in Christ.” That’s it. I do it every time I leave my room or my home. I dip my fingers in my little Holy Water font by the door jam and say: “What’s done is done in Christ.” Since beginning this simple practice years ago, it has expanded and I find myself repeating the phrase if not the gesture often throughout the day and especially at times of stress. Then I know that He is with me accompanying me in whatever task I’m about, not left behind in the Pew I won’t occupy again till Sunday next. I works for me. More than once it has stopped a sin or two BTW. It is simple and easy to remember. Make the sign of the Cross often over yourself and simple do the dishes with and thru Christ. Pump the gas with Him, change the tire with Him. Let Him accompany you in everything. Invite Him in to the whole day all day every day. You might be surprised by the transformational workings of the Holy Spirit in your life. Life is short. Walk with Christ thru it. He is waiting to take your hand. God bless. Ginnyfree.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." J.R.R. Tolkien <br>“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.” William Morris